To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

1376.pdf
[22.20 MB]
Link will provide options to open or save document.

File Format:

Adobe Reader

THE CHARISMATIC REVIVAL:
A SURVEY OF THE LITERATURE
GERALD c. STUDER
The current movement sometimes called "The Charis-matic
Revival" is also referred to as "Neo-Pentecostalism"
or simply "The Tongues Movement." It is necessarily dis-tinguished
from the earlier Pentecostalism which arose in the
early 1900's because it differs in several significant ways from
the pattern of its predecessor. It is generally agreed that this
movement began quietly in suburban St. Mark's Episcopal
Church of Van Nuys, Calif., on Sunday, April 3, 1960. Before
that day was over, it was a Passion Sunday in more than the
usual sense.
Because the events of that day mark the beginning of this
movement, we shall begin our survey with a rather full ac-count
of what happened on that occasion. This will be fol-lowed
by some general observations made after reading
widely in the literature of, or about, this movement. Several
of the more substantial books will be examined separately,
followed by a concluding statement.
The Beginning
At the 7:30 a.m. service on April 3, 1960, the Rev. Dennis
J. Bennett calmly related fo his Episcopal congregation the
story of his "baptism in the Holy Spirit" which had taken
place the previous October. He repeated his story at the
9:00 a.m. service and in doing so provoked a drastic response
from one of the associate priests, who removed his vestments,
publicly resigned and stalked down the aisle and out of the
church.
At the 11 :00 a.m. service, Father Bennett again told the
story of his "baptism" with the accompanying "speaking in
tongues." Aware of the explosive nature of his public decla-ration
and moved by a desire for the peace of the church,
Bennett shortly thereafter tendered his resignation. By this
time the parish of 2500 members was seething with the news
51
of what had happened, though the majority did not under-stand
its wider significance.
What had brought about Father Bennett's experience the
preceding October (1959)? The young rector of the nearby
(Episcopal) Church of the Holy Spirit in Monterey Park,
California, had come to Father Bennett for counsel. A young
couple, nominal members of his parish, had suddenly become
active in the church. They claimed that they had been filled
with the Holy Spirit and talked with other tongues! The
young pastor introduced the couple to the other young
couples in the parish in the hope that they might channel
their enthusiasm into the conventional church activities.
Instead, the other couples also "caught fire" and claimed
that they too had been filled with the Holy Spirit.
Bennett informally stepped in to help his fellow-clergyman
in a situation which seemed out of balance. Again the un-expected
happened and Bennett discovered that instead of
his helping these couples return to a more normal (nom-inal!?)
Christian and Church life, they had something that
he wanted. He was convinced that Jesus Christ was more
impressively real to them than to him. Within a few weeks,
Bennett himself had also "received" and spoken in other
tongues. His personal and ministerial life was transformed
as a result and a new joy overwhelmed him. By the time of
his public testimony some five months later at St. Mark's
Church, some seventy members had also "received" and an-other
six hundred were sympathetically interested.
Bennett has survived the Van Nuys "explosion" to become
the tireless advocate of this dynamic "baptism." Following
his resignation he was transferred to the almost-defunct St.
Luke's Episcopal Church in Seattle. What happened there
also requires some kind of an explanation. From the fifty
worshippers who attended the services of that church when
Bennett went to it, it grew within the next three years to a
congregation of several hundred members with a Friday
night prayer meeting regularly drawing from two to four
hundred people.
The beginning just described was the major one but there
were minor waves to this movement earlier. As early as
1956 there were about twenty ministers representing several
major denominations openly involved in a similar experi-
52
ence. In the last days of 1954 a remarkable series of events
clearly originating with the Holy Spirit took place in a Men-nonite
Church in northern Minnesota where Gerald Derstine
was pastor. StiU earlier, the FGBMFI was organized in Cal-ifornia
in 1952. Nevertheless the Van Nuys incident seems
to have marked the beginning of the general outbreak and
spread of this movement.
General Observations
The participants in this movement by and large are defi-nitely
not factors of divisiveness in their congregations and
denominations. On the contrary they become the most faith-ful
and enthusiastic members of their respective churches.
It is frequently months before these participants in the
movement make any public acknowledgment of their exper-ience
though they begin at once privately to share their new-found
joy. There is no particular dissatisfaction on their
part with the regular worship services or the other aspects of
the congregational program. At most, · those having "re-ceived,''.
together with others interested in a more vital wit-ness,
may begin a weekly week-night meeting at a private
home or in the church. This meeting is usually interdenom-inational
in character and consists primarily of praise and
prayer.
In those cases where the participants were professing Chris-tians
at the time of their "baptism" they do not doubt for a
moment that they · had ·been saved believers before. They
rather testify to a life lacking Christian joy, the courage to
witness, and a vital faith that benefits them in their daily
living. They do not claim perfection after their "baptism,"
nor do they deny the struggles and temptations that beset
them; rather they rejoice now in an overflowing power and
joy with which to meet these tests.
They invariably testify also to a new love for reading and
studying the Scripture. It is not unusual for one "baptized"
spontaneously to begin to spend an hour or more daily in
prayer, Bible reading and meditation.
Those who have "received" are not preoccupied with Chris-tian
doctrine though they are decidedly conservative in their
Christian beliefs. · Their experience leads them to take the
Bible far more seriously and to believe and practice it far
53·
more literally than before. Yet this literalness is in matters
of personal life and practice, not in matters that would add
to or subtract from the confessional statements of their re-spective
denominational traditions. In other words, they are
not so concerned with whether Methodism, for example, has
an explicit place for tongues in its historical statements as
they are that Methodists will permit them to believe and
witness to their faith as they are led to do. They have no
intention of disturbing a worship service or a Sunday School
class with tongues speaking but they would like to feel free
as occasions arise to quietly interpret the Scriptures to others
in the manner they have come to understand.
The "baptized" ones have come to a new appreciation of
and desire for, not only tongues, but all the gifts of the
Spirit. They will generally refer .to these as being nine in
number and with the variations of terminology found in the
New Testament will refer to them as knowledge, wisdom,
healing, faith, miracles, prophecy, discerning of spirits,
tongues and interpretation of tongues. They will distinguish
also between the fruits and the gifts of the Spirit but will
not agree that the gifts are dispensable if the fruits are in
sufficient evidence. They will certainly not agree either that
these gifts, especially tongues, can be adequately explained
by reference to psychological laws though they will readily
admit that any and all of these gifts may be counterfeited by
the Adversary or even by the flesh.
Critics of this movement frequently hold that the gifts of
the Spirit ceased with the death of the Apostles though they
may cautiously grant that Christ may choose upon occasion
in his sovereign will to permit, for example, a miracle to be
performed or an expression in tongues. They are more in-clined,
however, to believe that any widespread or continu-ous
evidence of these gifts may be psychologically explained,
if not indeed demonically induced.
Both sides frequently give the impression that their minds
were made up before they turned to the Scriptures. Yet in
all fairness it must be pointed out that the neo-pentecostal
will use the Bible "descriptively" while the critic of neo-pentecostalism
will use it "prescriptively." That is to say,
they will not really be "talking the same language" even in
English! The traditional non-Pentecostal evangelical goes
54
to the Bible to see what God intends Christians to be and
do, while the neo-pentecostal goes to the Scripture to find
words and expressions which describe what God has done.
He is utterly convinced that his "baptism" can only have
been of God, both because it has led him to believe in, love
and serve Christ more deeply and vitally than ever before
and because it empowers him to love his brothers and his
enemies to a degree that before he did not and could not.
This is admittedly a generalization with all the risks of over-simplification
but I believe it to be a sufficiently important
and accurate characterization to merit taking the risks. No
wonder McCandlish Phillips ended his classic report on this
movement in The Saturday Evening Post with these words:
"As the controversy over the resurgence of glossolalia con-tinues,
the charismatic himself feels no need to formulate
reasoned explanations. He repeats a favorite maxim: 'The
man who has an experience is never at the mercy of a man
who has an argument.' " (Compare the blind man incident
of John 9.)
There are plenty of hermeneutical and theological gym-nastics
on both sides. Both are equally ingenious and un-convincing.
Both are remarkably subjective much of the
time. The difference is that for the glossolalist this is admit-ted
and above reproach while the evangelical is less willing
to grant subjective proof a legitimate place in his Christian
understanding. It is not that the new pentecostal has less
respect or regard for the letter of Scripture than his skeptical
brother but rather that the new pentecostal is less willing to
give the objective factors such major, if not sole, priority
over the subjective one. Or perhaps to state it another way,
the tongues speaker considers present experience to be a fac-tor
as valid and objective to a proper understanding as the
linguistic, historical, exegetical and theological implications
of the Biblical record.
Russell T. Hitt seemed to be struggling with just this dif-ference
in attitude and interpretation when he wrote in
Eternity magazine: "In spite of the problem of explaining
the current neo-Pentecostal movement in the light of scrip-tural
teaching, it is bringing blessing to many people. Some
have come to Christ for the first time. Others have had a
real cleansing of their hearts and a filling of the Holy Spirit.''
55
He goes on to say that he thinks this could happen without
the attendant glossolalia but he can only rejoice with all
who have been so blessed and declares that he feels very
d-0se to them in the Lord. He agrees with Dr. John A. Mac-kay
that "crude life is to be preferred to aesthetic death,"
but Hitt also reminds his reader that there are some perils
in the movement.
A striking fact about this movement is the way it has
leaped out of its proletarian Pentecostal setting and made a
giant arc, passing over the middle-class churches in between
to come to rest again at the opposite pole, culturally, eco-nomically
and ecclesiastically. Subsequently, as one has . put
it, the fallout from this arc has been showering down upon
all the churches in between, including all of the historic
denominations. But even more than this, the movement has
cropped up in the smaller conservative denominational and
interdenominational groups such as Inter-Varsity Christian
Fellowship, Faith at Work, Wycliffe Bible Translators,
Wheaton College, Westmont College, Fuller Theological
Seminary, the Evangelical Free Church and the Plymouth
Brethren. It has made its conspicuous appearance on the
campuses of major universities.
The procedures used to pass this gift along are widely
varied. Generally it is by the laying on of hands and prayer.
Seekers are invited to remain after a service where testimony
concerning the value of the gift has been given with perhaps
an expression or two of tongues speaking. Occasionally the
person leading the after-meeting will suggest that the can-didates
open their mouths and begin mouthing certain syl-lables
(such as Abba) or the name of Jesus over and over
in a sort of pump-priming operation. But on the other
hand, there are also prominent leaders in the movement
such as David J. du Plessis who refuse even to lay hands on
candidates lest they get a wrong impression as to who the
Giver of this gift is. Generally it is in an atmosphere of
quiet teaching and seeking and waiting and there is no great
embarrassment to anyone concerned if a candidate does not
;'receive." Such seekers are urged to remain open to the
Lord's gifts and to continue to ask for them.
Some participants in this experience testify to having re-ceived
the baptism without knowing anything about the
56
movement or without having had any contact with one who
already was a tongues speaker. It is more typical, however,
for persons to have had some specific teaching and deliberate
exposure to the fellowship and influence of those who are
so gifted.
Critiques of Representative Books
This survey is not comprehensive. No attempt has been
made to track down the publications of minor publishers
nor to gather the articles that have appeared in the denomi-national
periodicals. Further, this survey will be limited to
the literature appearing since 1962. As for magazine articles,
we will confine our report to those published in the secular
and non-denominational evangelical periodicals. All books
or magazine articles included here are written by non-
Pentecostals with the exception of three books included
either because of their noteworthy ecumenical spirit or of
their evident objectivity in report and interpretation. These
three items will be indicated in the bibliography to follow
by an asterisk. The following items have been used in the
writing of this survey. They are listed according to the year
of their publication.
A. Books, Booklets, and Magazines
Voice, a 32-page magazine founded in 1952 and published by
the Full Gospel Business Men's Fellowship International
of Los Angeles, Calif. With the July-August issue of
1966 the circulation exceeded half a million copies.
1962
Nine Gifts of the Spirit Are Not in the Church Today, The,
B. F. Cate, Regular Baptist Press, Des Plaines, Ill., 62
pp., $.75.
1963
Baptists and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, Full Gospel
Business Men's Fellowship International, 32pp., $.50.
Eternity, "The New Pentecostalism: An Appraisal," by Rus-sell
T. Hitt, July, 1963.
Methodists and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, FGBMFI,
32pp., $.50. .
Presbyterians and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, FGBMFI,
32pp., $.50. .
Speaking in Tongues, H. J. Stolee, Augsburg Publishing
57.
House, Minneapolis, Minn. (reprint of 1936 edition),
142pp., $1.95.
*Spirit Bade Me Go, The, David du Plessis, Oakland, Calif.,
122pp.
1964
Christian Herald, series of articles by Marcus Bach, John G.
Finch, and V. Raymond Edman, May, 1964.
Christian Life, "Charismata Come to Britain," by David
Winter, March, 1964; "A Physician Looks at the Gifts
of the Holy Spirit," by Kahn Ueyeama, August, 1964.
Episcopalians and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, FGBMFI,
32 pp., $.50.
Faith at Work, "Authentic Proofs of the Spirit," by E. Stan-ley
Jones, May-June, 1964.
Saturday Evening Post, "And There Appeared to Them
Tongues of Fire," by McCandlish Phillips, May 16, 1964.
*Shakarian Story, The, Thomas R. Nickel, FGBMFI, 32pp.,
$.50.
Speaking in Tongues, M. R. De Haan, Radio Bible Class,
Grand Rapids, Mich., 30pp., .$.15.
Speaking in Tongues, Donald S. Metz, Nazarene Publishing
House, Kansas City, Mo., l l 5pp., $1.00.
They Speak with Other Tongues, John L. Sherrill, McGraw-
Hill Book Co., New York, 165pp., $4.50.
Tongue Speaking, Morton T. Kelsey, Doubleday & Co., Gar-
. , den City, N. Y., 252pp., $4.50.
View, a 24-page journal issued quarterly, begun in 1964,
which seeks to interpret the World-Wide Charismatic
Renewal and to relate it to: ethics, missions, theology,
sociology, psychology, politics, science, medicine, human-ities,
church history, education, philosophy, and com-munications;
FGBMFI, Los Angeles, Calif., $2 per year.
1965
Attorneys' Evidence on the Baptism of the Holy Spirit,
FGBMFI, 32pp., $.50.
Speaking with Tongues, Stuart Bergsma, Baker Book House,
Grand Rapids, Mich., 26pp., $.85.
1966
Healing Gifts of the Spirit, Agnes Sanford, Lippincott, Phila-delphia,
Pa.; 222pp., $3.75.
Holy Spirit in Today's World, The, W. A. Criswell, Zonder-van,
Grand Rapids, Mich., 193pp., $2.95.
Lutherans and the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, FGBMFI,
32pp., $.50.
58
*Pentecostalism; John Thomas Nichol, Harper & Row., New
York, 264pp., $5.95.
What About Tongue Speaking?, Anthony A. Hoekema, Eerd-mans,
Grand Rapids, Mich., 16lpp., $3.50.
B. Critique
1962
It is clear from the title, The Nine Gifts of the Spirit Are
Not in the Church Today, what the conclusion of author-preacher
B. F. Cate is on this matter. The booklet was first
published in 1956, was reprinted in 1957 and again annually
for years 1962, 1963, and 1964. It is subtitled "The Answer
to the Modern Tongues and Healing Movements," and Cate
spends considerably more pages refuting healing than he
does tongues. The author declares dogmatically that tongues
have ceased and that what is called tongues today is not the
same as that reported in the New Testament. He is not
alone in this viewpoint among those producing the recent
literature but he is far more dogmatic about it than most
others. He is firmly convinced that his viewpoint is nothing
else than the viewpoint of the Scripture provided the New
Testament is rightly divided.
1963
Speaking in Tongues by H. J. Stolee is the reprint of a
book first published in 1936 by Augsburg Publishing House.
0. G. Malmin's Introduction for this recent edition suggests
that the significant change in attitude among some within
the historic churches in the last. few years is the justification
for the reprinting of a book written 30 years ago under the
title, Pentecostalism, The Problem of the Modern Tongues
Movement. He proceeds to say that basically there is no dis-cernible
difference between these newer manifestations of
speaking in tongues and those described by Dr. Stolee, yet
he does admit that "a more rational theology of speaking in
tongues seems in the process of formulation." Both Stolee
and Malmin seem to vacillate between a dogmatic rejection
of tongues, on the one hand, and an ultra-cautious allowance
for them on the other.
Most fault is to be found with chapter 3, "The Place of
Tongues in Scripture." Stolee argues extensively from the
silences of Scripture. Other Bible teachings could be simi-
59
larly "taught away," such as the Virgin Birth, were we to
take this approach on other topics. He splits hairs over the
fact that Mark calls tongues signs instead of gifts in Mark
16:17. (He doesn't raise the textual problem here since all
these evidences but one are reported in Acts.) He defines
the purpose of the "signs" Mark speaks of (including heal-ing,
etc.) although Mark does not do so, nor does any other
inspired writer give this author unshakable ground for his
definition. Regarding these signs mentioned in Mark, he
summarily says, "But where the Word of God is being
preached we know of no conversions caused by signs of this
kind" - an irresponsible statement in light of the many well-documented
cases of conversion from nominality of Christian
experience, if not from outright paganism, which have arisen
from an encounter with the spiritual gifts (signs) in this
modern charismatic movement. Such cases, for instance, are
those of Emily Gardiner Neal in connection with healing
and John Sherrill in connection with tongues, to mention
only two. Stolee's apparent endorsement of quoted state-ments
by Sir Robert Anderson and Alexander Mackie also
indicates a predisposition to reject any possibility of tongues
as a valid contemporary Christian experience. He says: "We
know, as stated repeatedly, that tongues have ceased; that is,
such tongues that are from God." (italics his)
In the chapter on "The Modern Tongues Movement," he
alludes to story after story of folks carried away by the pente-costal
type of religious enthusiasm and then says: "In nearly
every instance it is the same pitiful, sordid, satanic delu-sion."
It is statements like this that reveal the grave inade-quacy
of this book so far as the present charismatic renewal
movement is concerned. Such a generalization is as irrespons-ible
as it would be to check off Anabaptism by a reference
to Munster.
Baptists and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is one of a
series of books concerning cases of tongues-speaking people
within the historic denominations. We shall speak at this
point of the entire series and not only of the three appear-ing
in 1963. Each book is a collection of the testimonies of
clergy and laymen from the particular denomination in ques-tion
as to the who, when, where, what and why of their
baptism with the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues. The
60
similar pamphlet published in 1965 which collected the testi-monies
of attorneys is apparently an attempt to point up the
reliability and genuineness of the experience by reference to
a profession whose primary duty is the ascertainment of
facts as against subjective opinions. Many, if not all, of these
testimonies appeared first in the pages of Voice, the official
organ of the FGBMFI, and they are here simply gathered
and republished in denominational or vocational groupings.
The common denominator of these testimonies is the evi-dence
of the baptism of the Spirit by speaking in tongues,
although the Baptist pamphlet contains a message given
by Billy Graham at one of the Full Gospel Businessmen's
Fellowship conventions. Nowhere does Graham indicate a
personal experience of tongues. He does, however, very
definitely endorse the movement, and undoubtedly his prom-inence
plus this fact was reason enough for including his
message. The diversities of attitude and manner of receiving
the experience are particularly outstanding in this series, and
this is of no concern to the movement. They are concerned
about the fact and not about stereotyping a manner.
While the Billy Graham message is the only instance in
this published series of a person not testifying to an experi-ence
of tongues speaking, it should be said that the possi-bility
of a baptism of the Spirit without tongues is acknowl-edged
otherwise also. Theoretically, every member of the
Board of Directors of any official chapter of the FGBMFI
must be a "Spirit-filled person" (as they frequently refer to
a tongues-speaking Christian). Yet a member of the Board
of Directors that founded the Pittsburgh Chapter had not
spoken in tongues at the time he served on the Board and
has not since. (This man is one of several faithful members
of this writer's congregation in Scottdale who have either
served on the Board or been active in attending and promot-ing
the local chapter.) Special permission had to be obtained
for this man to serve as a Board member but there was no
difficulty in obtaining it.
Some whose personal stories are included in these pam-phlets
testify to an effective ministry of healing through pray-er
prior to "receiving"; some report bursting forth in tongues
before the leader of a seekers' group ever got to them to lay
on hands with prayer; some mention the deep significance
61
that this experience has for them now but acknowledge also
the time when tongues and prophecies shall be needed no
more; some testify to both conversion and "baptism" at the
same time though most report months or years in between
the two events; some had spoken in tongues years before but
had not continued in the practice and resumed it only after
becoming ac.quainted with the FGBMFI; some mention that
they had taught and believed for years that this phenom-enon
was only for the early church. Nearly all who make
any attempt to describe the way the experience "feels" com-p;:
ire it to a powerful jolt of electricity.
T estimonies like these abound: "I am a better Presbyte-rian
than ever before and our church services are more mean-ingful."
"I now have a burning desire to read the Bible,
which has become a new book to me. My whole being has
been awakened to a sense of gratitude and thankfulness for
blessings I took for granted before." "Out of this experi-ence,
I have felt a fuller commitment to the Methodist
Church than ever before ... I have reread our 'Articles of
Religion' and am in more complete accord with them than
ever! I like my Church. It fits me .... The following ex-cerpt
from 'The Discipline' ... commands my whole-hearted
mpport: 'The Methodist Church believes today, as Method-ism
has from the first, that the only infallible proof of a true
church of Chri~t is its ability to seek and save the lost, to dis-seminate
the Pentecostal spirit and life, to spread Scriptural
holiness, and to transform all peoples and nations through
the Gospel of Christ!" John L. Peters, founder of World
Neighbors, says, "I now find a new and deeper intimacy in
the quality of my relationship to my Lord, a new and deeper
bond with those who know and love Him. I have found an
added and more rewarding method by which to pray and
praise. I seem to have discovered a new key to personal
worship and edification, a new joy, a new fellowship, a new
dimension."
David J. du Plessis' The Spirit Bade Me Go is a collection
of articles and speeches · by the author and others concerning
the amazingly wide and prominent ecumenical contacts of
this former Assembly of God minister. He has experienced
tongues for more than 45 years and has the "distinction" of
having been "disfellowshipped by the Assemblies of God
62
(USA) for his ecumenical activities" (Nichol). He for years
served the earlier Pentecostal movement in the Apostolic
Faith Mission of South Africa. A friend of John Mackay,
former president of Princeton Theological Seminary, du
Plessis served on the staff of the Second Assembly of the
World Council at Evanston, and attended the Third Assem-bly
in New Delhi as an Observer. He has delivered lectures
on Pentecostalism at numerous theological seminaries and
the Ecumenical Institute of the World Council of Churches.
He has served on the planning committee of the Pentecostal
World Conferences that began in 1947 and continue to the
present. The man has an unusual gift for teaching. This
writer participated in a group of about ten persons who sat
under his teaching on the Holy Spirit at the International f
FGBMFI Convention in Chicago several years ago. This
unusual gift is evident also in his book, as the following
excerpts indicate.
In a speech to the International Missionary Council at
Willingen, Germany, in 1952, du Plessis attempted to explain
why the Pentecostals had succeeded in encircling the world
with missions in less than 50 years, and that without tradi-tional
institutions: "The reason why Pentecostals have been
so successful in missions is because they are Pentecostal. I
did not say it is because we speak with tongues, for if that
was all we had from the experience of the baptism in the
Holy Spirit, we would have been a forgotten issue long ago."
In a paper prepared for the Commission on Faith and
Order of the World Council of Churches, meeting at St. An-drews,
Scotland: "The greatest phenomenon has never been
the speaking in other tongues but rather the power of the
Spirit and the resultant effective witnessing. vVe are great
believers in the priesthood of all believers, and we have
been far more interested in apostolic power than in apostolic
succession."
In all fairness it must also be reported that on one occasion
when he was asked whether Pentecostals still teach that
tongues is essential to the baptism of the Holy Spirit, du
Plessis answered: "No, unfortunately not, and where this
standard is dropped, there the fervency and power of the re-vival
tends to diminish greatly. It seems that we must either
63
accept all the manifestations of the Spirit in Scriptural order
or we lose the power that follows the baptism in the Spirit."
In his Missions Lecture given by invitation of the presi-dent
of Princeton Theological Seminary in 1960, he said:
"Many become confused when after great spiritual adven-tures
they discover the enemy is more real than ever. When
people tell me they do not know much about the devil and
demonism, I must conclude that they do not know the Holy
Spirit either." Again in these lectures he said: "Once a pro-fessor
asked me: 'Why do you always emphasize tongues?'
With a smile I asked him: 'Sir, why do you always oppose
tongues?' You see, anyone will always defend the issue on
which he is attacked. Personally I encourage no one to seek
for a 'tongues experience' but rather for a baptism that is
true to the Pentecostal pattern.
"Much of the confusion today is a matter of sem.antics.
All too often we hear people talk about the baptism of the
Spirit when they mean in or with. The baptism of the Spirit
comes at conversion or regeneration . . . Being baptized by
the Spirit into the body is not an encounter with the Church
but with the Holy Spirit. Baptism in water is not an encoun-ter
with the water but with the Church. The baptism into
the Holy Spirit is not an encounter with the Spirit but with
Christ, the baptizer. This means total surrender and abso-
1u te commitment to Jesus. Without this He cannot baptize
you in the Spirit. . . . Christians who have never heard the
kind of doctrine that says: 'This is not for our day, this may
be evil, and this is sheer emotion,' do not find it difficult to
cooperate with the Spirit and to speak as He gives utterance.
But those who learned and preach this corrupt doctrine
about the manifestations and gifts of the Holy Spirit find
tremendous mental blocks in their subconscious mind.
"The Holy Spirit does not give the gift of tongues, or any
other gift. He only manifests himself through you ·so that
you can give these gifts to the Church for edification (see I
Cor. 12:7).... 'But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet
show I unto you a more excellent way [than coveting]' (I
Cor. 12:31) - not more excellent than gifts.... 'If I speak
with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not love, I
am become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal.' There-fore,
away with tongues, says someone. Is that so? 'If I be-
64
stow all my goods to feed the poor ... but have not love, it
profiteth me nothing.' Therefore, away with benevolent
societies and charitable associations? Oh, no, that is the very
proof of our Christian love. Then why object to tongues?"
1964
In this writer's opm10n the year 1964 produced the two
best books of all those included in this survey. To be sure
there is nothing that can take the place of a personal reading
of the testimonies to be found in the denominational book-lets
already commented on, or the book by du Plessis. But
of the books written by non-Pentecostals and initially intend-ed
to be written by non-tongues-speakers, those by Morton
T. Kelsey and John L. Sherrill are unquestionably outstand-ing.
"Initially intended," mind you, because in the process
of gathering the material for his book, Sherrill came into the
experience himself, in spite of his original intention.
Kelsey has succeeded as admirably in retaining his critical
faculty while writing from without the movement as Nichol
has while writing from within it. Yet the fact that Kelsey
is so clearly sympathetic to the movement will undoubtedly
lead some readers to doubt his objectivity. His qualifications
for writing such a book as this rise to his defense, however.
He is an Episcopalian clergyman with firsthand acquaint-ance
with the movement in California, where he has been
rector of St. Luke's Episcopal Church in Monrovia since 1950.
He is a Phi Beta Kappa scholar, graduated with honors from
Washington and Lee University and the Episcopal Theolog-ical
School in Cambridge. He has done graduate work in
psychology at Claremont University in California and the
C. G. Jung Institute in Switzerland, and in philosophy at
Princeton. He is active in the psychological clinic conducted
by his church as a facet of the congregational ministry.
His report is spiced with detailed case histories and per-sonal
testimonies from a variety of people, lay and clergy
alike. His study has convinced Mr. Kelsey that speaking in
tongues is a genuine spiritual experience, more helpful than
harmful. Oddly, the Foreword is written by Upton Sinclair
and his explanation as to how this came about and what his
reactions were to the invitation are interesting, to say the
least. The author states in his preface that he originally be-
65
gan to study the subject because it was one of several neg-lected
aspects of Christian experience. The main reason, he
believes, that this experience has not been more widely ap-preciated
is simply that most people have had no ground
upon which to stand from where they could get a look at it.
A few particularly significant excerpts follow: "It seems
to be a physical impossibility to duplicate tongue-speech by
deliberate imitation; when gibberish is produced by con-scious
effort, this also produces muscular tension which soon
differentiates the sounds from the effortless flow of glosso-lalia."
Kelsey gives individual treatment to the seven direct
passages on tongues speaking in the New Testament but also
to eight other New Testament passages in which he says "it
could well be that glossolalia was meant. Though the author
did not use the precise words, each of these comes from a
context suggesting strongly that he had speaking in tongues
in mind." To those of us who have long read these passages
with the conscious or unconscious conviction that they could
mean nothing of the sort, Kelsey's treatment is an eye-opener
whether or not we choose to accept it. He closes his discus-tion
of these fifteen passages with the conclusion that this
NT evidence "is not nearly as extensive as the references to
healing, or to dreams and visions, or to the angelic and de-monic
realm, but it is certainly central to the apostolic
narrative."
H e later recounts his experience in attending a vesper
service held by the Assemblies of God at a campground high
in the mountains east of Los Angeles. It was a tent meeting
with a nationally known evangelist as leader. There were a
variety of talks in a very informal atmosphere. The presi-dent
of a Bible college spoke on the necessity of education
along with the Pentecostal experience. The evangelist
preached from Ephesians ("Awake, 0 sleepers .. . ") and three
times in all during the service glossolalia was heard with in-terpretation.
Then Kelsey says: "One remarkable feature .. .
was the ability of the leaders to show affection for each
other. T he men were free enough as they said goodbye, per-haps
for years, to embrace, to demonstrate real Christian
affection. Is it possible that Paul was right, and there is a
religious experience which reduces, instead of increases, our
need for taboos?" (emphasis mine)
66
Chapters six and seven are two of the more provocative
chapters in this book in that they demonstrate the disconti-nuities
between ·tongues and pagan ecstasies. Many authors,
ancient and modern, have attempted to demonstrate the
similarity, if not the organic connection, between tongues
and the condition of the trance medium or some other He-brew,
Greek or pagan form of ecstatic frenzy. Kelsey's con-clusion,
easy to reject perhaps until you examine closely ·his
full treatment, is that "actually there is nothing to be found
in either Hebrew or Greek antecedents comparable to the
experience d escribed by Paul's letters and the Book of Acts
as speaking in tongues. And if it is suggested that it could
not be a new experience but must have been known and not
described, we must consider how unlikely this would have
been among people who valued such experiences so highly .
. . . \Ve forget that even the Greeks were far more cordial to
the irrational than our stress on their golden age of reason
would make us believe. It almost takes a laboratory study
of these elements, such as Dodds has put together, to make
us realize how superstitious we often are about the rational
Greeks. . . . There is no experience we know of in ancient
times which is not clearly differentiated from speaking in
tongues, and in several ways .. .. In the light of serious
studies about these various phenomena, the New Testament
speaking in tongues canno~ be put down as simply another
occurrence of something that was going on all over the an-cient
world . The Christian experience was one which was
quite differen t both in kind and in quality from other con-temporary
experiences to which it has been compared."
Kelsey's conclusion to chapter six is worth quoting in full:
"If speaking in tongues is accepted as a Christian phenom-enon,
in the way the writers of the New Testament saw and
described it, the experience is seen as far more complex than
many people believe. It is a mpernatural gift of a foreign
or n on-human language given at the time of the break-through
of the Holy Spirit into an individual life. The
speaker, as many have expressed it, has the sense of being
filled with a reality beyond himself which speaks through
him. Once this experience has been known, one can enter
into it at will, and he finds an immediate way of relating to
God and the H oly Spirit. T his language can be interpreted
67
either by the individual or by another person possessed by
the Spirit. It indicates that something beyond the human
ego is in possession of the human life.
"There are difficulties to this interpretation also. It runs
counter to the world we live in. Few people even consider
seriously the idea that divine powers actually do possess hu-man
beings. The rationalistic materialism of our age which
is certainly the dominant philosophy of our time can find
no place for such an experience. This world which has
been so successful in creating antibiotics and atom bombs
finds its credulity taxed by the experience of a strange, for-eign
tongue which purports (for no seeming good purpose)
to be given by a divine spirit as a sign of its indwelling. This
is simply incomprehensible to many modern men.
"The conclusion as to which of these explanations is more
plausible depends upon something more than the evidence
we have presented. What one can make of this experience
will be determined by the world view from which he regards
it. Whether tongues is viewed as a psychological anomaly
or a religious experience of real worth will depend not so
much upon the facts as upon the way we look at the world
in which we live, whether our world view has a place for
such experiences or not. It is now our task to sketch two
Christian world views current in our world today to provide
a backdrop against which we can evaluate the experience of
tongues."
In the following chapter Kelsey sketches the two different
Christian world views alluded to: the basic view of the west-ern
Christian world for the past five centuries is that man
gets his knowledge of all reality, God included, through his
sense experience and his reason making inferences from it,
while the other Christian view which dominated man's
understanding for the first thousand years is that man has
knowledge of the world in which he lives not only through
sense experience and reason, but also through direct experi-ence
of the non-physical world. This latter view adds an-other
dimension and introduces a greater complexity to
human experience.
Kelsey alludes to many religious movements from the Lol-lards
through the Anabaptists, the Camisards, the J ansenists,
the Methodists down to the modern Pentecostals as living
68
witnesses to the idea that men still have direct contact with
spiritual reality. He says: "In our materialistic world it had
to be expressed concretely (materialistically) in an outer
manifestation or it would not have been heard at all. The
present movement is a cry of protest against the materialism
and formalism of western Christianity."
Virtually all conservative Protestant theology assumes the
world view of the past five hundred years and follows the
track of the basic rationalism of Aristotle and Aquinas and
consequently has little place, in contrast to the New Testa·
ment, for any direct experience of the spiritual, tongues in-cluded.
What more common comment is heard in regard to
tongues than the question, "But of what use are they!"
Back in 1949 William Sargant, one of the great men of
British psychiatry, wrote an article for the Proceedings of
the Royal Society of Medicine in which he discussed tongues
at length. Concluding his article, Dr. Sargant made a plea
for open-mindedness in regard to these religious practices.
He reminded his readers that "in psychiatry and religion we
must examine facts before condemning theory. In 1743, when
England was in an uproar about Wesley's preaching methods,
a certain Mr. Thomas Butts recorded this comment: 'As to
persons crying out and being in fits, I shall not pretend to
account exactly for that but only make this observation: it
is well known that most of them who have been so exercised
... have peace and joy in believing and are more holy and
happy than ever they were before. And if this is so, [it
doesn't] matter what remarks are made on their fits.' The
same might be said today about some of our modern abre-active
techniques and shock treatment in therapy." Or about
tongues, and all the more so since even the reactions are far
less extreme. (Incidentally, while the critics of tongues-speaking
sometimes mention Wesley as sharing their views,
this is not so, as Wesley's reply to Conyers Middleton on
this matter clearly proves; cf. his Complete Works, vol. x.)
As for the comparison of irrational speech in schizo-phrenia
with Christian tongues, one psychologist familiar
with both points out that there is little outward similarity
between them, and furthermore that it is surprising how
seldom schizophrenic individuals are found who have exper-ienced
tongues. Some (e.g., Bergsma) have attempted to
69
explain tongues as a coughing up, so to speak, out of the
unconscious of undigested remnants of memory of other
languages previously heard but not consciously recalled.
But there is no explanation offered by the holders of this
theory .how it is that the repressed memories of foreign lan-guages
happen to consist of such vocabularies for the praise
of God and Jesus Christ. There are sufficient documented
cases of tongues turning out to be expressions of praise to
God in tongues unknown to the speaker but known to other
persons in the congregation to underscore the inadequacy of
this explanation. Hypnotism is an equally faulty explana-tion,
as Kelsey points out.
If one is set upon finding a psychological explanation for
tongues, he will encounter innumerable difficulties in doing
so, though tongues speaking bears some resemblance to
dreams and even more to visions. The true vision is like
tongues in that it appears to an individual who is perfectly
conscious, knows that something beyond his ego is invading
his field of consciousness, and is able in most cases by avert-ing
his attention to dismiss the experience or to continue it.
(See Paul's interesting comment in this connection in I Cor.
14:32.) In a vision one "dreams" while awake; in tongues-speech
he speaks from the unconscious while awake.
There is no question in Kelsey's mind but that tongues
can be dangerous in several ways. It can become a short-cut
to religious and psychological growth which is more liable
to stunt than to give full measure. The experience can be
made to displace Christ as the center of Christian experience
so that Christian wholeness is lost rather than gained. Our
Lord's rule-of-thumb can be helpful · here too, namely that
"by their fruits ye shall know them." And if such be the
case, the classic answer of D. L. Moody to a critic of his
evangelistic techniques is appropriate here ("I like the way
I am doing it better than the way you are not doing it") in
rejoinder to those who see no practical purpose in tongues
but who do not themselves exemplify the love, joy, and spon-taneous
witness that characterizes the lives of so many who
have received this experience and who continue in it.
John Sherrill's They Speak with Other Tongues is a first
person singular story by a senior editor of Guideposts mag-azine
who set out to discover quite matter-of-factly the
70
answer to the question, "What is speaking in tongues?" His
research took him across the country into the homes of the-ologians
and day laborers, into musty libraries and hand-clapping
church services, and at last to personal adventure
as he came face-to-face with a seeming miracle. (He is the
son of the late Lewis J. Sherrill, Professor of Union Theo-logical
Seminary, New York, and author of such outstanding
books as Guilt and Redemption, Struggle of the Soul, and
Gift of Power.)
Donald S. Metz' Speaking in Tongu es has as its thesis that
"speaking in unknown tongues is a purely human reaction
which may or may not indicate valid spiritual activity, aris-ing
from spiritual confusion, spiritual frustration, or spir-itual
immaturity." It is obvious that the author set out to
prove a thesis rather than to examine a phenomenon.
1965
The author of Speaking with Tongu es, Stuart Bergsma,
describes himself as a Christian, a medical man, a psychia-trist,
and a common sense scientist. He begins by listing
"three amazing, unique, authentic miraculous phenomena"
in the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles. These are tongues, demon
possession with exorcism, and healing. The logic of singling
these out from a considerably larger list of miraculous phe-nomena
in the New Testament is never made clear. He
relegates most, if not all, of the genuine cases of glossolalia
to the Apostolic era and declares that modern glossolalia is
in "an entirely different category from Pentecost glossolalia
and true glossolalia in the gospel age and the Pauline age."
But his explanation for this is exceedingly tenuous and arbi-trary:
"But for several reasons unknown to us, if we look at
what passes for glossolalia in our modern age, it would seem
that God very possibly does not choose to act thus through
the miraculous in these days. And finally, these manifesta-tions,
as they appear today, can be psychologically and phys-iologically
explained."
Bergsma betrays the fact that he is unacquainted with the
current tongues movement when he says: "Thus far, to my
knowledge, glossolalia has not appeared in the pulpit or
church life of any of the churches of the Reformed groups."
Harold Bredesen, pastor of the century-old First Reformed
71
Church of Mount Vernon, N. Y., has been a leading light in
the charismatic movement for many years. Bergsma reveals
his ignorance further when he says that cases of identifiable
languages being spoken are "extremely rare."
He lumps the current movement with the Holy Rollers
of his early childhood, the ouija·board craze of post-World
War I days, and spiritualistic seances. He dogmatically
asserts: "Obviously nothing can come out of each individual
brain that was not once previously stored there" and pro-ceeds
to state tha·t the very few cases of modern genuine
glossolalia are instances of the repetition of words in another
language heard at some time past but not consciously recalled.
Of course this does not account for the fact that these words
are so appropriately recalled at the time and place when they
are needed and framed by the speaker who doesn't remember
ever hearing them into sentences that minister to the needs
of others with whom he is worshipping. Bergsma's explana-tion
of tongues-speaking is harder to believe than the miracle
itself. He rightly criticizes, just as the Apostle Paul does,
some of the very real misconceptions concerning tongues-speaking,
such as the belief that glossolalia is a means of
getting spiritual maturity for nothing, or the craving for a
constant diet of sensational experiences. However, he does
not have Paul's wisdom when he resorts to disparagement of
the gift instead of correction of the abuses.
1966
Hoekema's What About Tongue-Speaking? utilizes many
of the same arguments and interpretations as the other books.
He too strongly pits Scripture against experience and assumes
Scripture's priority without seriously weighing the possibility
of a balance between the two being a superior and more
comprehensive vantage point from which to view and to ex-amine
this movement.
He winsomely differs with many views and inclinations
commonly found among the Pentecostalists. For example,
he reminds the reader that the Pentecostals hold that the
baptism in the Holy Spirit must be wrested from the Lord
by believers through agonizing prayer and then replies to
this with the comment that this was not demanded in the
cases of the Samaritans, the household of Cornelius, or the
72
Ephesian disciples. Against this however we must also weigh
carefully Paul's admonitions to "be filled with the Spirit,"
"stir up the gift of God within you," etc.
In closing this survey of literature, it will be of profit yet
to consider briefly at least the chapter on tongues in a very
recent book by the Episcopalian woman, Agnes Sanford. She
is the wife of a clergyman and the author of two other sig-nificant
books: The Healing Light and Behold Your God.
She is in demand as a lecturer and has traveled throughout
the world in this work. Her most recent book and the one
that concerns us here is The Healing Gifts of the Spirit. In
a chapter entitled "The Gift of Tongues and of Interpre-tation"
she says: "Much to the consternation of many people,
another truth is emerging concerning the mysterious work-ing
of God's Holy Spirit; namely, that He is able to speak
both in and through an individual in a language that the
person in his conscious mind does not know .... In the early
days it was accepted by simple faith, as just another instance
of the marvelous works of God. Then came the age of
'reason' in which it was rejected as gibberish, as hysteria -
quite a natural assumption if one does not understand the
mental and spiritual laws through which this power works."
She elaborates upon the danger of "laying hands sudden-ly"
upon a person before he is prepared to receive such an
experience as tongues. She says that those who in their
enthusiasm lay hands on anyone with a minimum of prepa-ration
probably do not know that while some are blessed by
this, others are thrown into confusion and depression, and
she adds, "I do know, for I often pick up the wreckage."
After they have been burnt over by such a premature exper-ience
it is much more difficult for them to receive the real,
deep, life.giving power of the Holy Spirit - perhaps as diffi-cult
for them as for others who have a deep-seated skepticism
that such is either desirable, possible or scriptural! She pro-ceeds:
"Some people teach today that those who speak in
tongues have the Holy Spirit and those who do not speak
with tongues do not have the Holy Spirit. I cannot agree
with this assumption. In the first place the Bible does not
teach it . . . 'That there may be no schism in the body,' says
[the Apostle Paul] rather pathetically, considering the fact
that the explosion of this gift without understanding has
73
caused so much schism and controversy that many people
wish it had been left safely wrapped in the napkin of igno-rance
and buried in the ground, as was the unused talent in
our Lord's parable .... However, our Lord's remarks to the
cautious one who primly buried the talent were not such as
to encourage us in turning our backs upon an uncompre-hended
power. We would do better, as Dr. Henry P. Van
Dusen says in his book Spirit, Son and Father, to seek the
mysterious workings of the Spirit in spite of their occasional
eruption into apparent hysteria rather than to reject the
Holy Spirit in toto." (emphasis in original)
Those without understanding ask in response to Paul's
word, "He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth
himself": "How can a man edify himself if he does not
know what he is saying?" And Agnes Sanford replies, the
speaker in many cases does know in his unconscious mind
and this is why the majority of tongues speakers testify to
such an inexpressible satisfaction in the experience. "He is
speaking forth for the first time the deep knowledge of that
other part of himself and as he speaks it forth it is raised to
a higher level of the unconscious, is grasped in the essence
of its feeling ... and sometimes even emerges into the reason-ing
mind so that a small peripheral part of it is interpreted
in one's own language.... I am not against electricity be-cause
I may warn a grandchild not to stick a knife in the
toaster or touch a hot iron. Those who go berserk over the
gift of tongues have stuck a knife in the toaster and it is not
the fault of electricity that they have done so."
She explains further: "Tongues when practiced in private
prayer are largely a way of silencing the conscious mind . so
that the spirit may be freed to commune directly with God."
She speaks frankly to her neo-Pentecostal friends and warns
against making a fetish of holy joy. She reminds them
sternly that the purpose of all our Christian walk is not
simply the acquiring of joy but the following of Christ as a
faithful disciple and soldier in the battle against sin, the
world, and the devil.
She asserts that there are two ways of interpreting tongues:
one by previous knowledge of the language and the other by
direct inspiration of the Spirit. Do such things happen to-day?
she asks, and she answers, "Yes, they do .... I know an
74
instance of a group attended by a seminary professor. He
did not profess this gift, but being a teacher of the Bible he
was interested in learning whatever he could learn of the
operation of the Spirit. . . . It happened that a young woman
spoke in tongues, the voice becoming clear and loud, and
the words going forth in a tone of authority. The group
naturally became silent. When she had ceased, another wom-an
spoke forth in English. The professor said afterwards
that the first young woman had spoken perfect Hebrew and
the second woman had given a very fair interpretation
neither one of them, of course, knowing Hebrew."
Concluding Remarks
With a growing familiarity with this movement both in
life and in literature comes the growing conviction that the
new Pentecostals have very much the same internal problem
with tongues that the historic peace churches have with non-resistance.
The clarity of the Scripture on the subject is
such for us, and the conviction so deeply rooted in our gen-eral
understanding of the life and teachings of our Lord,
not to mention His redemption by the shedding of His
blood, that we can scarcely conceive of any serious Christian
not finding the call coming to him loud and clear to embrace
nonresistance. We refuse to say that a person must be com-mitted
to nonresistance to be truly saved, yet when we come
to consider the minimal requirements for membership in the
corporate body of Christ we are loath to leave this facet of
discipleship an open option for possible later commitment.
Consequently we hope never to need to declare ourselves
finally on this matter, and if we do need to, we live then
with an uneasy conscience about it. Our Baptist brethren
feel similarly about the mode of baptism. Other traditions
also have their deep feelings about, and attachments to, be-liefs
and practices they consider clearly Biblical in origin
and essential in Christian experience. Hopefully our con-viction
that we must love the enemy will permit us to love
our brethren also! - letting this question remain open to
further light. In the meantime however we proceed with
confidence holding to our belief and sharing it with others
at every appropriate opportunity. Just so with those who
75
have in a mature and balanced way entered into a new di-mension
of experience via the charismatic revival movement.
There are many other facets which even this lengthy sur-vey
has reluctantly had to omit. For some undoubtedly the
more important facets have been omitted but, if so, it is
only because what is crucial varies with each individual.
This writer agrees with those charismatic ministers who
argue that the world is as precarious for Christianity right
now as it has ever been and that this is why there is a re-surgence
of this early church phenomenon. The Rev. Dr.
John Mackay, President Emeritus of Princeton Seminary,
says: "There is a kind of mystic violence abroad in the world
today. In my mind this is surging up in the secular realm
at the end of an era, and you have got to match that in the
religious realm so that religion becomes a very, very exciting
th.i ng that absorbs you.r whole life in the principle of com- m1tment.
"In the secular realm we see people like the beatniks and
the delinquents who have just got to get their whole emo-tional
being in some direction, even in the wrong direction.
But the church is orderly. That hour is over; you could get
the historical churches irrelevant to the human situation. One
ieason is that they're unwilling to face the realities of the
kind of relationship to Deity which becomes a very exciting
thing. They're scared to death of anything that will get
your life.
"We are at the end of an era. Revolutionary, volcanic
forces are at work, and our people won't face that. We just
don' t want to look at it, you see, at the very time the vol-cano
is erupting."
The gist of the matter would seem to be that we guard
against taking too narrow a view at either end of the ques-tion.
The individual who has had a particular experience
may be too ardent about his discovery; the individual who
has not had the experience may he too biased in his views.
This has always been religion's dilemma ("I belong to Paul,"
"I belong to Cephas"). In a very real way this is also reli.:
gion's challenge to the unity and faith of men in our time
as their spiritual adventure affects their relationship to each
other and to God.
76

THE CHARISMATIC REVIVAL:
A SURVEY OF THE LITERATURE
GERALD c. STUDER
The current movement sometimes called "The Charis-matic
Revival" is also referred to as "Neo-Pentecostalism"
or simply "The Tongues Movement." It is necessarily dis-tinguished
from the earlier Pentecostalism which arose in the
early 1900's because it differs in several significant ways from
the pattern of its predecessor. It is generally agreed that this
movement began quietly in suburban St. Mark's Episcopal
Church of Van Nuys, Calif., on Sunday, April 3, 1960. Before
that day was over, it was a Passion Sunday in more than the
usual sense.
Because the events of that day mark the beginning of this
movement, we shall begin our survey with a rather full ac-count
of what happened on that occasion. This will be fol-lowed
by some general observations made after reading
widely in the literature of, or about, this movement. Several
of the more substantial books will be examined separately,
followed by a concluding statement.
The Beginning
At the 7:30 a.m. service on April 3, 1960, the Rev. Dennis
J. Bennett calmly related fo his Episcopal congregation the
story of his "baptism in the Holy Spirit" which had taken
place the previous October. He repeated his story at the
9:00 a.m. service and in doing so provoked a drastic response
from one of the associate priests, who removed his vestments,
publicly resigned and stalked down the aisle and out of the
church.
At the 11 :00 a.m. service, Father Bennett again told the
story of his "baptism" with the accompanying "speaking in
tongues." Aware of the explosive nature of his public decla-ration
and moved by a desire for the peace of the church,
Bennett shortly thereafter tendered his resignation. By this
time the parish of 2500 members was seething with the news
51
of what had happened, though the majority did not under-stand
its wider significance.
What had brought about Father Bennett's experience the
preceding October (1959)? The young rector of the nearby
(Episcopal) Church of the Holy Spirit in Monterey Park,
California, had come to Father Bennett for counsel. A young
couple, nominal members of his parish, had suddenly become
active in the church. They claimed that they had been filled
with the Holy Spirit and talked with other tongues! The
young pastor introduced the couple to the other young
couples in the parish in the hope that they might channel
their enthusiasm into the conventional church activities.
Instead, the other couples also "caught fire" and claimed
that they too had been filled with the Holy Spirit.
Bennett informally stepped in to help his fellow-clergyman
in a situation which seemed out of balance. Again the un-expected
happened and Bennett discovered that instead of
his helping these couples return to a more normal (nom-inal!?)
Christian and Church life, they had something that
he wanted. He was convinced that Jesus Christ was more
impressively real to them than to him. Within a few weeks,
Bennett himself had also "received" and spoken in other
tongues. His personal and ministerial life was transformed
as a result and a new joy overwhelmed him. By the time of
his public testimony some five months later at St. Mark's
Church, some seventy members had also "received" and an-other
six hundred were sympathetically interested.
Bennett has survived the Van Nuys "explosion" to become
the tireless advocate of this dynamic "baptism." Following
his resignation he was transferred to the almost-defunct St.
Luke's Episcopal Church in Seattle. What happened there
also requires some kind of an explanation. From the fifty
worshippers who attended the services of that church when
Bennett went to it, it grew within the next three years to a
congregation of several hundred members with a Friday
night prayer meeting regularly drawing from two to four
hundred people.
The beginning just described was the major one but there
were minor waves to this movement earlier. As early as
1956 there were about twenty ministers representing several
major denominations openly involved in a similar experi-
52
ence. In the last days of 1954 a remarkable series of events
clearly originating with the Holy Spirit took place in a Men-nonite
Church in northern Minnesota where Gerald Derstine
was pastor. StiU earlier, the FGBMFI was organized in Cal-ifornia
in 1952. Nevertheless the Van Nuys incident seems
to have marked the beginning of the general outbreak and
spread of this movement.
General Observations
The participants in this movement by and large are defi-nitely
not factors of divisiveness in their congregations and
denominations. On the contrary they become the most faith-ful
and enthusiastic members of their respective churches.
It is frequently months before these participants in the
movement make any public acknowledgment of their exper-ience
though they begin at once privately to share their new-found
joy. There is no particular dissatisfaction on their
part with the regular worship services or the other aspects of
the congregational program. At most, · those having "re-ceived,''.
together with others interested in a more vital wit-ness,
may begin a weekly week-night meeting at a private
home or in the church. This meeting is usually interdenom-inational
in character and consists primarily of praise and
prayer.
In those cases where the participants were professing Chris-tians
at the time of their "baptism" they do not doubt for a
moment that they · had ·been saved believers before. They
rather testify to a life lacking Christian joy, the courage to
witness, and a vital faith that benefits them in their daily
living. They do not claim perfection after their "baptism,"
nor do they deny the struggles and temptations that beset
them; rather they rejoice now in an overflowing power and
joy with which to meet these tests.
They invariably testify also to a new love for reading and
studying the Scripture. It is not unusual for one "baptized"
spontaneously to begin to spend an hour or more daily in
prayer, Bible reading and meditation.
Those who have "received" are not preoccupied with Chris-tian
doctrine though they are decidedly conservative in their
Christian beliefs. · Their experience leads them to take the
Bible far more seriously and to believe and practice it far
53·
more literally than before. Yet this literalness is in matters
of personal life and practice, not in matters that would add
to or subtract from the confessional statements of their re-spective
denominational traditions. In other words, they are
not so concerned with whether Methodism, for example, has
an explicit place for tongues in its historical statements as
they are that Methodists will permit them to believe and
witness to their faith as they are led to do. They have no
intention of disturbing a worship service or a Sunday School
class with tongues speaking but they would like to feel free
as occasions arise to quietly interpret the Scriptures to others
in the manner they have come to understand.
The "baptized" ones have come to a new appreciation of
and desire for, not only tongues, but all the gifts of the
Spirit. They will generally refer .to these as being nine in
number and with the variations of terminology found in the
New Testament will refer to them as knowledge, wisdom,
healing, faith, miracles, prophecy, discerning of spirits,
tongues and interpretation of tongues. They will distinguish
also between the fruits and the gifts of the Spirit but will
not agree that the gifts are dispensable if the fruits are in
sufficient evidence. They will certainly not agree either that
these gifts, especially tongues, can be adequately explained
by reference to psychological laws though they will readily
admit that any and all of these gifts may be counterfeited by
the Adversary or even by the flesh.
Critics of this movement frequently hold that the gifts of
the Spirit ceased with the death of the Apostles though they
may cautiously grant that Christ may choose upon occasion
in his sovereign will to permit, for example, a miracle to be
performed or an expression in tongues. They are more in-clined,
however, to believe that any widespread or continu-ous
evidence of these gifts may be psychologically explained,
if not indeed demonically induced.
Both sides frequently give the impression that their minds
were made up before they turned to the Scriptures. Yet in
all fairness it must be pointed out that the neo-pentecostal
will use the Bible "descriptively" while the critic of neo-pentecostalism
will use it "prescriptively." That is to say,
they will not really be "talking the same language" even in
English! The traditional non-Pentecostal evangelical goes
54
to the Bible to see what God intends Christians to be and
do, while the neo-pentecostal goes to the Scripture to find
words and expressions which describe what God has done.
He is utterly convinced that his "baptism" can only have
been of God, both because it has led him to believe in, love
and serve Christ more deeply and vitally than ever before
and because it empowers him to love his brothers and his
enemies to a degree that before he did not and could not.
This is admittedly a generalization with all the risks of over-simplification
but I believe it to be a sufficiently important
and accurate characterization to merit taking the risks. No
wonder McCandlish Phillips ended his classic report on this
movement in The Saturday Evening Post with these words:
"As the controversy over the resurgence of glossolalia con-tinues,
the charismatic himself feels no need to formulate
reasoned explanations. He repeats a favorite maxim: 'The
man who has an experience is never at the mercy of a man
who has an argument.' " (Compare the blind man incident
of John 9.)
There are plenty of hermeneutical and theological gym-nastics
on both sides. Both are equally ingenious and un-convincing.
Both are remarkably subjective much of the
time. The difference is that for the glossolalist this is admit-ted
and above reproach while the evangelical is less willing
to grant subjective proof a legitimate place in his Christian
understanding. It is not that the new pentecostal has less
respect or regard for the letter of Scripture than his skeptical
brother but rather that the new pentecostal is less willing to
give the objective factors such major, if not sole, priority
over the subjective one. Or perhaps to state it another way,
the tongues speaker considers present experience to be a fac-tor
as valid and objective to a proper understanding as the
linguistic, historical, exegetical and theological implications
of the Biblical record.
Russell T. Hitt seemed to be struggling with just this dif-ference
in attitude and interpretation when he wrote in
Eternity magazine: "In spite of the problem of explaining
the current neo-Pentecostal movement in the light of scrip-tural
teaching, it is bringing blessing to many people. Some
have come to Christ for the first time. Others have had a
real cleansing of their hearts and a filling of the Holy Spirit.''
55
He goes on to say that he thinks this could happen without
the attendant glossolalia but he can only rejoice with all
who have been so blessed and declares that he feels very
d-0se to them in the Lord. He agrees with Dr. John A. Mac-kay
that "crude life is to be preferred to aesthetic death,"
but Hitt also reminds his reader that there are some perils
in the movement.
A striking fact about this movement is the way it has
leaped out of its proletarian Pentecostal setting and made a
giant arc, passing over the middle-class churches in between
to come to rest again at the opposite pole, culturally, eco-nomically
and ecclesiastically. Subsequently, as one has . put
it, the fallout from this arc has been showering down upon
all the churches in between, including all of the historic
denominations. But even more than this, the movement has
cropped up in the smaller conservative denominational and
interdenominational groups such as Inter-Varsity Christian
Fellowship, Faith at Work, Wycliffe Bible Translators,
Wheaton College, Westmont College, Fuller Theological
Seminary, the Evangelical Free Church and the Plymouth
Brethren. It has made its conspicuous appearance on the
campuses of major universities.
The procedures used to pass this gift along are widely
varied. Generally it is by the laying on of hands and prayer.
Seekers are invited to remain after a service where testimony
concerning the value of the gift has been given with perhaps
an expression or two of tongues speaking. Occasionally the
person leading the after-meeting will suggest that the can-didates
open their mouths and begin mouthing certain syl-lables
(such as Abba) or the name of Jesus over and over
in a sort of pump-priming operation. But on the other
hand, there are also prominent leaders in the movement
such as David J. du Plessis who refuse even to lay hands on
candidates lest they get a wrong impression as to who the
Giver of this gift is. Generally it is in an atmosphere of
quiet teaching and seeking and waiting and there is no great
embarrassment to anyone concerned if a candidate does not
;'receive." Such seekers are urged to remain open to the
Lord's gifts and to continue to ask for them.
Some participants in this experience testify to having re-ceived
the baptism without knowing anything about the
56
movement or without having had any contact with one who
already was a tongues speaker. It is more typical, however,
for persons to have had some specific teaching and deliberate
exposure to the fellowship and influence of those who are
so gifted.
Critiques of Representative Books
This survey is not comprehensive. No attempt has been
made to track down the publications of minor publishers
nor to gather the articles that have appeared in the denomi-national
periodicals. Further, this survey will be limited to
the literature appearing since 1962. As for magazine articles,
we will confine our report to those published in the secular
and non-denominational evangelical periodicals. All books
or magazine articles included here are written by non-
Pentecostals with the exception of three books included
either because of their noteworthy ecumenical spirit or of
their evident objectivity in report and interpretation. These
three items will be indicated in the bibliography to follow
by an asterisk. The following items have been used in the
writing of this survey. They are listed according to the year
of their publication.
A. Books, Booklets, and Magazines
Voice, a 32-page magazine founded in 1952 and published by
the Full Gospel Business Men's Fellowship International
of Los Angeles, Calif. With the July-August issue of
1966 the circulation exceeded half a million copies.
1962
Nine Gifts of the Spirit Are Not in the Church Today, The,
B. F. Cate, Regular Baptist Press, Des Plaines, Ill., 62
pp., $.75.
1963
Baptists and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, Full Gospel
Business Men's Fellowship International, 32pp., $.50.
Eternity, "The New Pentecostalism: An Appraisal," by Rus-sell
T. Hitt, July, 1963.
Methodists and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, FGBMFI,
32pp., $.50. .
Presbyterians and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, FGBMFI,
32pp., $.50. .
Speaking in Tongues, H. J. Stolee, Augsburg Publishing
57.
House, Minneapolis, Minn. (reprint of 1936 edition),
142pp., $1.95.
*Spirit Bade Me Go, The, David du Plessis, Oakland, Calif.,
122pp.
1964
Christian Herald, series of articles by Marcus Bach, John G.
Finch, and V. Raymond Edman, May, 1964.
Christian Life, "Charismata Come to Britain," by David
Winter, March, 1964; "A Physician Looks at the Gifts
of the Holy Spirit," by Kahn Ueyeama, August, 1964.
Episcopalians and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, FGBMFI,
32 pp., $.50.
Faith at Work, "Authentic Proofs of the Spirit," by E. Stan-ley
Jones, May-June, 1964.
Saturday Evening Post, "And There Appeared to Them
Tongues of Fire," by McCandlish Phillips, May 16, 1964.
*Shakarian Story, The, Thomas R. Nickel, FGBMFI, 32pp.,
$.50.
Speaking in Tongues, M. R. De Haan, Radio Bible Class,
Grand Rapids, Mich., 30pp., .$.15.
Speaking in Tongues, Donald S. Metz, Nazarene Publishing
House, Kansas City, Mo., l l 5pp., $1.00.
They Speak with Other Tongues, John L. Sherrill, McGraw-
Hill Book Co., New York, 165pp., $4.50.
Tongue Speaking, Morton T. Kelsey, Doubleday & Co., Gar-
. , den City, N. Y., 252pp., $4.50.
View, a 24-page journal issued quarterly, begun in 1964,
which seeks to interpret the World-Wide Charismatic
Renewal and to relate it to: ethics, missions, theology,
sociology, psychology, politics, science, medicine, human-ities,
church history, education, philosophy, and com-munications;
FGBMFI, Los Angeles, Calif., $2 per year.
1965
Attorneys' Evidence on the Baptism of the Holy Spirit,
FGBMFI, 32pp., $.50.
Speaking with Tongues, Stuart Bergsma, Baker Book House,
Grand Rapids, Mich., 26pp., $.85.
1966
Healing Gifts of the Spirit, Agnes Sanford, Lippincott, Phila-delphia,
Pa.; 222pp., $3.75.
Holy Spirit in Today's World, The, W. A. Criswell, Zonder-van,
Grand Rapids, Mich., 193pp., $2.95.
Lutherans and the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, FGBMFI,
32pp., $.50.
58
*Pentecostalism; John Thomas Nichol, Harper & Row., New
York, 264pp., $5.95.
What About Tongue Speaking?, Anthony A. Hoekema, Eerd-mans,
Grand Rapids, Mich., 16lpp., $3.50.
B. Critique
1962
It is clear from the title, The Nine Gifts of the Spirit Are
Not in the Church Today, what the conclusion of author-preacher
B. F. Cate is on this matter. The booklet was first
published in 1956, was reprinted in 1957 and again annually
for years 1962, 1963, and 1964. It is subtitled "The Answer
to the Modern Tongues and Healing Movements," and Cate
spends considerably more pages refuting healing than he
does tongues. The author declares dogmatically that tongues
have ceased and that what is called tongues today is not the
same as that reported in the New Testament. He is not
alone in this viewpoint among those producing the recent
literature but he is far more dogmatic about it than most
others. He is firmly convinced that his viewpoint is nothing
else than the viewpoint of the Scripture provided the New
Testament is rightly divided.
1963
Speaking in Tongues by H. J. Stolee is the reprint of a
book first published in 1936 by Augsburg Publishing House.
0. G. Malmin's Introduction for this recent edition suggests
that the significant change in attitude among some within
the historic churches in the last. few years is the justification
for the reprinting of a book written 30 years ago under the
title, Pentecostalism, The Problem of the Modern Tongues
Movement. He proceeds to say that basically there is no dis-cernible
difference between these newer manifestations of
speaking in tongues and those described by Dr. Stolee, yet
he does admit that "a more rational theology of speaking in
tongues seems in the process of formulation." Both Stolee
and Malmin seem to vacillate between a dogmatic rejection
of tongues, on the one hand, and an ultra-cautious allowance
for them on the other.
Most fault is to be found with chapter 3, "The Place of
Tongues in Scripture." Stolee argues extensively from the
silences of Scripture. Other Bible teachings could be simi-
59
larly "taught away," such as the Virgin Birth, were we to
take this approach on other topics. He splits hairs over the
fact that Mark calls tongues signs instead of gifts in Mark
16:17. (He doesn't raise the textual problem here since all
these evidences but one are reported in Acts.) He defines
the purpose of the "signs" Mark speaks of (including heal-ing,
etc.) although Mark does not do so, nor does any other
inspired writer give this author unshakable ground for his
definition. Regarding these signs mentioned in Mark, he
summarily says, "But where the Word of God is being
preached we know of no conversions caused by signs of this
kind" - an irresponsible statement in light of the many well-documented
cases of conversion from nominality of Christian
experience, if not from outright paganism, which have arisen
from an encounter with the spiritual gifts (signs) in this
modern charismatic movement. Such cases, for instance, are
those of Emily Gardiner Neal in connection with healing
and John Sherrill in connection with tongues, to mention
only two. Stolee's apparent endorsement of quoted state-ments
by Sir Robert Anderson and Alexander Mackie also
indicates a predisposition to reject any possibility of tongues
as a valid contemporary Christian experience. He says: "We
know, as stated repeatedly, that tongues have ceased; that is,
such tongues that are from God." (italics his)
In the chapter on "The Modern Tongues Movement," he
alludes to story after story of folks carried away by the pente-costal
type of religious enthusiasm and then says: "In nearly
every instance it is the same pitiful, sordid, satanic delu-sion."
It is statements like this that reveal the grave inade-quacy
of this book so far as the present charismatic renewal
movement is concerned. Such a generalization is as irrespons-ible
as it would be to check off Anabaptism by a reference
to Munster.
Baptists and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is one of a
series of books concerning cases of tongues-speaking people
within the historic denominations. We shall speak at this
point of the entire series and not only of the three appear-ing
in 1963. Each book is a collection of the testimonies of
clergy and laymen from the particular denomination in ques-tion
as to the who, when, where, what and why of their
baptism with the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues. The
60
similar pamphlet published in 1965 which collected the testi-monies
of attorneys is apparently an attempt to point up the
reliability and genuineness of the experience by reference to
a profession whose primary duty is the ascertainment of
facts as against subjective opinions. Many, if not all, of these
testimonies appeared first in the pages of Voice, the official
organ of the FGBMFI, and they are here simply gathered
and republished in denominational or vocational groupings.
The common denominator of these testimonies is the evi-dence
of the baptism of the Spirit by speaking in tongues,
although the Baptist pamphlet contains a message given
by Billy Graham at one of the Full Gospel Businessmen's
Fellowship conventions. Nowhere does Graham indicate a
personal experience of tongues. He does, however, very
definitely endorse the movement, and undoubtedly his prom-inence
plus this fact was reason enough for including his
message. The diversities of attitude and manner of receiving
the experience are particularly outstanding in this series, and
this is of no concern to the movement. They are concerned
about the fact and not about stereotyping a manner.
While the Billy Graham message is the only instance in
this published series of a person not testifying to an experi-ence
of tongues speaking, it should be said that the possi-bility
of a baptism of the Spirit without tongues is acknowl-edged
otherwise also. Theoretically, every member of the
Board of Directors of any official chapter of the FGBMFI
must be a "Spirit-filled person" (as they frequently refer to
a tongues-speaking Christian). Yet a member of the Board
of Directors that founded the Pittsburgh Chapter had not
spoken in tongues at the time he served on the Board and
has not since. (This man is one of several faithful members
of this writer's congregation in Scottdale who have either
served on the Board or been active in attending and promot-ing
the local chapter.) Special permission had to be obtained
for this man to serve as a Board member but there was no
difficulty in obtaining it.
Some whose personal stories are included in these pam-phlets
testify to an effective ministry of healing through pray-er
prior to "receiving"; some report bursting forth in tongues
before the leader of a seekers' group ever got to them to lay
on hands with prayer; some mention the deep significance
61
that this experience has for them now but acknowledge also
the time when tongues and prophecies shall be needed no
more; some testify to both conversion and "baptism" at the
same time though most report months or years in between
the two events; some had spoken in tongues years before but
had not continued in the practice and resumed it only after
becoming ac.quainted with the FGBMFI; some mention that
they had taught and believed for years that this phenom-enon
was only for the early church. Nearly all who make
any attempt to describe the way the experience "feels" com-p;:
ire it to a powerful jolt of electricity.
T estimonies like these abound: "I am a better Presbyte-rian
than ever before and our church services are more mean-ingful."
"I now have a burning desire to read the Bible,
which has become a new book to me. My whole being has
been awakened to a sense of gratitude and thankfulness for
blessings I took for granted before." "Out of this experi-ence,
I have felt a fuller commitment to the Methodist
Church than ever before ... I have reread our 'Articles of
Religion' and am in more complete accord with them than
ever! I like my Church. It fits me .... The following ex-cerpt
from 'The Discipline' ... commands my whole-hearted
mpport: 'The Methodist Church believes today, as Method-ism
has from the first, that the only infallible proof of a true
church of Chri~t is its ability to seek and save the lost, to dis-seminate
the Pentecostal spirit and life, to spread Scriptural
holiness, and to transform all peoples and nations through
the Gospel of Christ!" John L. Peters, founder of World
Neighbors, says, "I now find a new and deeper intimacy in
the quality of my relationship to my Lord, a new and deeper
bond with those who know and love Him. I have found an
added and more rewarding method by which to pray and
praise. I seem to have discovered a new key to personal
worship and edification, a new joy, a new fellowship, a new
dimension."
David J. du Plessis' The Spirit Bade Me Go is a collection
of articles and speeches · by the author and others concerning
the amazingly wide and prominent ecumenical contacts of
this former Assembly of God minister. He has experienced
tongues for more than 45 years and has the "distinction" of
having been "disfellowshipped by the Assemblies of God
62
(USA) for his ecumenical activities" (Nichol). He for years
served the earlier Pentecostal movement in the Apostolic
Faith Mission of South Africa. A friend of John Mackay,
former president of Princeton Theological Seminary, du
Plessis served on the staff of the Second Assembly of the
World Council at Evanston, and attended the Third Assem-bly
in New Delhi as an Observer. He has delivered lectures
on Pentecostalism at numerous theological seminaries and
the Ecumenical Institute of the World Council of Churches.
He has served on the planning committee of the Pentecostal
World Conferences that began in 1947 and continue to the
present. The man has an unusual gift for teaching. This
writer participated in a group of about ten persons who sat
under his teaching on the Holy Spirit at the International f
FGBMFI Convention in Chicago several years ago. This
unusual gift is evident also in his book, as the following
excerpts indicate.
In a speech to the International Missionary Council at
Willingen, Germany, in 1952, du Plessis attempted to explain
why the Pentecostals had succeeded in encircling the world
with missions in less than 50 years, and that without tradi-tional
institutions: "The reason why Pentecostals have been
so successful in missions is because they are Pentecostal. I
did not say it is because we speak with tongues, for if that
was all we had from the experience of the baptism in the
Holy Spirit, we would have been a forgotten issue long ago."
In a paper prepared for the Commission on Faith and
Order of the World Council of Churches, meeting at St. An-drews,
Scotland: "The greatest phenomenon has never been
the speaking in other tongues but rather the power of the
Spirit and the resultant effective witnessing. vVe are great
believers in the priesthood of all believers, and we have
been far more interested in apostolic power than in apostolic
succession."
In all fairness it must also be reported that on one occasion
when he was asked whether Pentecostals still teach that
tongues is essential to the baptism of the Holy Spirit, du
Plessis answered: "No, unfortunately not, and where this
standard is dropped, there the fervency and power of the re-vival
tends to diminish greatly. It seems that we must either
63
accept all the manifestations of the Spirit in Scriptural order
or we lose the power that follows the baptism in the Spirit."
In his Missions Lecture given by invitation of the presi-dent
of Princeton Theological Seminary in 1960, he said:
"Many become confused when after great spiritual adven-tures
they discover the enemy is more real than ever. When
people tell me they do not know much about the devil and
demonism, I must conclude that they do not know the Holy
Spirit either." Again in these lectures he said: "Once a pro-fessor
asked me: 'Why do you always emphasize tongues?'
With a smile I asked him: 'Sir, why do you always oppose
tongues?' You see, anyone will always defend the issue on
which he is attacked. Personally I encourage no one to seek
for a 'tongues experience' but rather for a baptism that is
true to the Pentecostal pattern.
"Much of the confusion today is a matter of sem.antics.
All too often we hear people talk about the baptism of the
Spirit when they mean in or with. The baptism of the Spirit
comes at conversion or regeneration . . . Being baptized by
the Spirit into the body is not an encounter with the Church
but with the Holy Spirit. Baptism in water is not an encoun-ter
with the water but with the Church. The baptism into
the Holy Spirit is not an encounter with the Spirit but with
Christ, the baptizer. This means total surrender and abso-
1u te commitment to Jesus. Without this He cannot baptize
you in the Spirit. . . . Christians who have never heard the
kind of doctrine that says: 'This is not for our day, this may
be evil, and this is sheer emotion,' do not find it difficult to
cooperate with the Spirit and to speak as He gives utterance.
But those who learned and preach this corrupt doctrine
about the manifestations and gifts of the Holy Spirit find
tremendous mental blocks in their subconscious mind.
"The Holy Spirit does not give the gift of tongues, or any
other gift. He only manifests himself through you ·so that
you can give these gifts to the Church for edification (see I
Cor. 12:7).... 'But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet
show I unto you a more excellent way [than coveting]' (I
Cor. 12:31) - not more excellent than gifts.... 'If I speak
with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not love, I
am become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal.' There-fore,
away with tongues, says someone. Is that so? 'If I be-
64
stow all my goods to feed the poor ... but have not love, it
profiteth me nothing.' Therefore, away with benevolent
societies and charitable associations? Oh, no, that is the very
proof of our Christian love. Then why object to tongues?"
1964
In this writer's opm10n the year 1964 produced the two
best books of all those included in this survey. To be sure
there is nothing that can take the place of a personal reading
of the testimonies to be found in the denominational book-lets
already commented on, or the book by du Plessis. But
of the books written by non-Pentecostals and initially intend-ed
to be written by non-tongues-speakers, those by Morton
T. Kelsey and John L. Sherrill are unquestionably outstand-ing.
"Initially intended," mind you, because in the process
of gathering the material for his book, Sherrill came into the
experience himself, in spite of his original intention.
Kelsey has succeeded as admirably in retaining his critical
faculty while writing from without the movement as Nichol
has while writing from within it. Yet the fact that Kelsey
is so clearly sympathetic to the movement will undoubtedly
lead some readers to doubt his objectivity. His qualifications
for writing such a book as this rise to his defense, however.
He is an Episcopalian clergyman with firsthand acquaint-ance
with the movement in California, where he has been
rector of St. Luke's Episcopal Church in Monrovia since 1950.
He is a Phi Beta Kappa scholar, graduated with honors from
Washington and Lee University and the Episcopal Theolog-ical
School in Cambridge. He has done graduate work in
psychology at Claremont University in California and the
C. G. Jung Institute in Switzerland, and in philosophy at
Princeton. He is active in the psychological clinic conducted
by his church as a facet of the congregational ministry.
His report is spiced with detailed case histories and per-sonal
testimonies from a variety of people, lay and clergy
alike. His study has convinced Mr. Kelsey that speaking in
tongues is a genuine spiritual experience, more helpful than
harmful. Oddly, the Foreword is written by Upton Sinclair
and his explanation as to how this came about and what his
reactions were to the invitation are interesting, to say the
least. The author states in his preface that he originally be-
65
gan to study the subject because it was one of several neg-lected
aspects of Christian experience. The main reason, he
believes, that this experience has not been more widely ap-preciated
is simply that most people have had no ground
upon which to stand from where they could get a look at it.
A few particularly significant excerpts follow: "It seems
to be a physical impossibility to duplicate tongue-speech by
deliberate imitation; when gibberish is produced by con-scious
effort, this also produces muscular tension which soon
differentiates the sounds from the effortless flow of glosso-lalia."
Kelsey gives individual treatment to the seven direct
passages on tongues speaking in the New Testament but also
to eight other New Testament passages in which he says "it
could well be that glossolalia was meant. Though the author
did not use the precise words, each of these comes from a
context suggesting strongly that he had speaking in tongues
in mind." To those of us who have long read these passages
with the conscious or unconscious conviction that they could
mean nothing of the sort, Kelsey's treatment is an eye-opener
whether or not we choose to accept it. He closes his discus-tion
of these fifteen passages with the conclusion that this
NT evidence "is not nearly as extensive as the references to
healing, or to dreams and visions, or to the angelic and de-monic
realm, but it is certainly central to the apostolic
narrative."
H e later recounts his experience in attending a vesper
service held by the Assemblies of God at a campground high
in the mountains east of Los Angeles. It was a tent meeting
with a nationally known evangelist as leader. There were a
variety of talks in a very informal atmosphere. The presi-dent
of a Bible college spoke on the necessity of education
along with the Pentecostal experience. The evangelist
preached from Ephesians ("Awake, 0 sleepers .. . ") and three
times in all during the service glossolalia was heard with in-terpretation.
Then Kelsey says: "One remarkable feature .. .
was the ability of the leaders to show affection for each
other. T he men were free enough as they said goodbye, per-haps
for years, to embrace, to demonstrate real Christian
affection. Is it possible that Paul was right, and there is a
religious experience which reduces, instead of increases, our
need for taboos?" (emphasis mine)
66
Chapters six and seven are two of the more provocative
chapters in this book in that they demonstrate the disconti-nuities
between ·tongues and pagan ecstasies. Many authors,
ancient and modern, have attempted to demonstrate the
similarity, if not the organic connection, between tongues
and the condition of the trance medium or some other He-brew,
Greek or pagan form of ecstatic frenzy. Kelsey's con-clusion,
easy to reject perhaps until you examine closely ·his
full treatment, is that "actually there is nothing to be found
in either Hebrew or Greek antecedents comparable to the
experience d escribed by Paul's letters and the Book of Acts
as speaking in tongues. And if it is suggested that it could
not be a new experience but must have been known and not
described, we must consider how unlikely this would have
been among people who valued such experiences so highly .
. . . \Ve forget that even the Greeks were far more cordial to
the irrational than our stress on their golden age of reason
would make us believe. It almost takes a laboratory study
of these elements, such as Dodds has put together, to make
us realize how superstitious we often are about the rational
Greeks. . . . There is no experience we know of in ancient
times which is not clearly differentiated from speaking in
tongues, and in several ways .. .. In the light of serious
studies about these various phenomena, the New Testament
speaking in tongues canno~ be put down as simply another
occurrence of something that was going on all over the an-cient
world . The Christian experience was one which was
quite differen t both in kind and in quality from other con-temporary
experiences to which it has been compared."
Kelsey's conclusion to chapter six is worth quoting in full:
"If speaking in tongues is accepted as a Christian phenom-enon,
in the way the writers of the New Testament saw and
described it, the experience is seen as far more complex than
many people believe. It is a mpernatural gift of a foreign
or n on-human language given at the time of the break-through
of the Holy Spirit into an individual life. The
speaker, as many have expressed it, has the sense of being
filled with a reality beyond himself which speaks through
him. Once this experience has been known, one can enter
into it at will, and he finds an immediate way of relating to
God and the H oly Spirit. T his language can be interpreted
67
either by the individual or by another person possessed by
the Spirit. It indicates that something beyond the human
ego is in possession of the human life.
"There are difficulties to this interpretation also. It runs
counter to the world we live in. Few people even consider
seriously the idea that divine powers actually do possess hu-man
beings. The rationalistic materialism of our age which
is certainly the dominant philosophy of our time can find
no place for such an experience. This world which has
been so successful in creating antibiotics and atom bombs
finds its credulity taxed by the experience of a strange, for-eign
tongue which purports (for no seeming good purpose)
to be given by a divine spirit as a sign of its indwelling. This
is simply incomprehensible to many modern men.
"The conclusion as to which of these explanations is more
plausible depends upon something more than the evidence
we have presented. What one can make of this experience
will be determined by the world view from which he regards
it. Whether tongues is viewed as a psychological anomaly
or a religious experience of real worth will depend not so
much upon the facts as upon the way we look at the world
in which we live, whether our world view has a place for
such experiences or not. It is now our task to sketch two
Christian world views current in our world today to provide
a backdrop against which we can evaluate the experience of
tongues."
In the following chapter Kelsey sketches the two different
Christian world views alluded to: the basic view of the west-ern
Christian world for the past five centuries is that man
gets his knowledge of all reality, God included, through his
sense experience and his reason making inferences from it,
while the other Christian view which dominated man's
understanding for the first thousand years is that man has
knowledge of the world in which he lives not only through
sense experience and reason, but also through direct experi-ence
of the non-physical world. This latter view adds an-other
dimension and introduces a greater complexity to
human experience.
Kelsey alludes to many religious movements from the Lol-lards
through the Anabaptists, the Camisards, the J ansenists,
the Methodists down to the modern Pentecostals as living
68
witnesses to the idea that men still have direct contact with
spiritual reality. He says: "In our materialistic world it had
to be expressed concretely (materialistically) in an outer
manifestation or it would not have been heard at all. The
present movement is a cry of protest against the materialism
and formalism of western Christianity."
Virtually all conservative Protestant theology assumes the
world view of the past five hundred years and follows the
track of the basic rationalism of Aristotle and Aquinas and
consequently has little place, in contrast to the New Testa·
ment, for any direct experience of the spiritual, tongues in-cluded.
What more common comment is heard in regard to
tongues than the question, "But of what use are they!"
Back in 1949 William Sargant, one of the great men of
British psychiatry, wrote an article for the Proceedings of
the Royal Society of Medicine in which he discussed tongues
at length. Concluding his article, Dr. Sargant made a plea
for open-mindedness in regard to these religious practices.
He reminded his readers that "in psychiatry and religion we
must examine facts before condemning theory. In 1743, when
England was in an uproar about Wesley's preaching methods,
a certain Mr. Thomas Butts recorded this comment: 'As to
persons crying out and being in fits, I shall not pretend to
account exactly for that but only make this observation: it
is well known that most of them who have been so exercised
... have peace and joy in believing and are more holy and
happy than ever they were before. And if this is so, [it
doesn't] matter what remarks are made on their fits.' The
same might be said today about some of our modern abre-active
techniques and shock treatment in therapy." Or about
tongues, and all the more so since even the reactions are far
less extreme. (Incidentally, while the critics of tongues-speaking
sometimes mention Wesley as sharing their views,
this is not so, as Wesley's reply to Conyers Middleton on
this matter clearly proves; cf. his Complete Works, vol. x.)
As for the comparison of irrational speech in schizo-phrenia
with Christian tongues, one psychologist familiar
with both points out that there is little outward similarity
between them, and furthermore that it is surprising how
seldom schizophrenic individuals are found who have exper-ienced
tongues. Some (e.g., Bergsma) have attempted to
69
explain tongues as a coughing up, so to speak, out of the
unconscious of undigested remnants of memory of other
languages previously heard but not consciously recalled.
But there is no explanation offered by the holders of this
theory .how it is that the repressed memories of foreign lan-guages
happen to consist of such vocabularies for the praise
of God and Jesus Christ. There are sufficient documented
cases of tongues turning out to be expressions of praise to
God in tongues unknown to the speaker but known to other
persons in the congregation to underscore the inadequacy of
this explanation. Hypnotism is an equally faulty explana-tion,
as Kelsey points out.
If one is set upon finding a psychological explanation for
tongues, he will encounter innumerable difficulties in doing
so, though tongues speaking bears some resemblance to
dreams and even more to visions. The true vision is like
tongues in that it appears to an individual who is perfectly
conscious, knows that something beyond his ego is invading
his field of consciousness, and is able in most cases by avert-ing
his attention to dismiss the experience or to continue it.
(See Paul's interesting comment in this connection in I Cor.
14:32.) In a vision one "dreams" while awake; in tongues-speech
he speaks from the unconscious while awake.
There is no question in Kelsey's mind but that tongues
can be dangerous in several ways. It can become a short-cut
to religious and psychological growth which is more liable
to stunt than to give full measure. The experience can be
made to displace Christ as the center of Christian experience
so that Christian wholeness is lost rather than gained. Our
Lord's rule-of-thumb can be helpful · here too, namely that
"by their fruits ye shall know them." And if such be the
case, the classic answer of D. L. Moody to a critic of his
evangelistic techniques is appropriate here ("I like the way
I am doing it better than the way you are not doing it") in
rejoinder to those who see no practical purpose in tongues
but who do not themselves exemplify the love, joy, and spon-taneous
witness that characterizes the lives of so many who
have received this experience and who continue in it.
John Sherrill's They Speak with Other Tongues is a first
person singular story by a senior editor of Guideposts mag-azine
who set out to discover quite matter-of-factly the
70
answer to the question, "What is speaking in tongues?" His
research took him across the country into the homes of the-ologians
and day laborers, into musty libraries and hand-clapping
church services, and at last to personal adventure
as he came face-to-face with a seeming miracle. (He is the
son of the late Lewis J. Sherrill, Professor of Union Theo-logical
Seminary, New York, and author of such outstanding
books as Guilt and Redemption, Struggle of the Soul, and
Gift of Power.)
Donald S. Metz' Speaking in Tongu es has as its thesis that
"speaking in unknown tongues is a purely human reaction
which may or may not indicate valid spiritual activity, aris-ing
from spiritual confusion, spiritual frustration, or spir-itual
immaturity." It is obvious that the author set out to
prove a thesis rather than to examine a phenomenon.
1965
The author of Speaking with Tongu es, Stuart Bergsma,
describes himself as a Christian, a medical man, a psychia-trist,
and a common sense scientist. He begins by listing
"three amazing, unique, authentic miraculous phenomena"
in the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles. These are tongues, demon
possession with exorcism, and healing. The logic of singling
these out from a considerably larger list of miraculous phe-nomena
in the New Testament is never made clear. He
relegates most, if not all, of the genuine cases of glossolalia
to the Apostolic era and declares that modern glossolalia is
in "an entirely different category from Pentecost glossolalia
and true glossolalia in the gospel age and the Pauline age."
But his explanation for this is exceedingly tenuous and arbi-trary:
"But for several reasons unknown to us, if we look at
what passes for glossolalia in our modern age, it would seem
that God very possibly does not choose to act thus through
the miraculous in these days. And finally, these manifesta-tions,
as they appear today, can be psychologically and phys-iologically
explained."
Bergsma betrays the fact that he is unacquainted with the
current tongues movement when he says: "Thus far, to my
knowledge, glossolalia has not appeared in the pulpit or
church life of any of the churches of the Reformed groups."
Harold Bredesen, pastor of the century-old First Reformed
71
Church of Mount Vernon, N. Y., has been a leading light in
the charismatic movement for many years. Bergsma reveals
his ignorance further when he says that cases of identifiable
languages being spoken are "extremely rare."
He lumps the current movement with the Holy Rollers
of his early childhood, the ouija·board craze of post-World
War I days, and spiritualistic seances. He dogmatically
asserts: "Obviously nothing can come out of each individual
brain that was not once previously stored there" and pro-ceeds
to state tha·t the very few cases of modern genuine
glossolalia are instances of the repetition of words in another
language heard at some time past but not consciously recalled.
Of course this does not account for the fact that these words
are so appropriately recalled at the time and place when they
are needed and framed by the speaker who doesn't remember
ever hearing them into sentences that minister to the needs
of others with whom he is worshipping. Bergsma's explana-tion
of tongues-speaking is harder to believe than the miracle
itself. He rightly criticizes, just as the Apostle Paul does,
some of the very real misconceptions concerning tongues-speaking,
such as the belief that glossolalia is a means of
getting spiritual maturity for nothing, or the craving for a
constant diet of sensational experiences. However, he does
not have Paul's wisdom when he resorts to disparagement of
the gift instead of correction of the abuses.
1966
Hoekema's What About Tongue-Speaking? utilizes many
of the same arguments and interpretations as the other books.
He too strongly pits Scripture against experience and assumes
Scripture's priority without seriously weighing the possibility
of a balance between the two being a superior and more
comprehensive vantage point from which to view and to ex-amine
this movement.
He winsomely differs with many views and inclinations
commonly found among the Pentecostalists. For example,
he reminds the reader that the Pentecostals hold that the
baptism in the Holy Spirit must be wrested from the Lord
by believers through agonizing prayer and then replies to
this with the comment that this was not demanded in the
cases of the Samaritans, the household of Cornelius, or the
72
Ephesian disciples. Against this however we must also weigh
carefully Paul's admonitions to "be filled with the Spirit,"
"stir up the gift of God within you," etc.
In closing this survey of literature, it will be of profit yet
to consider briefly at least the chapter on tongues in a very
recent book by the Episcopalian woman, Agnes Sanford. She
is the wife of a clergyman and the author of two other sig-nificant
books: The Healing Light and Behold Your God.
She is in demand as a lecturer and has traveled throughout
the world in this work. Her most recent book and the one
that concerns us here is The Healing Gifts of the Spirit. In
a chapter entitled "The Gift of Tongues and of Interpre-tation"
she says: "Much to the consternation of many people,
another truth is emerging concerning the mysterious work-ing
of God's Holy Spirit; namely, that He is able to speak
both in and through an individual in a language that the
person in his conscious mind does not know .... In the early
days it was accepted by simple faith, as just another instance
of the marvelous works of God. Then came the age of
'reason' in which it was rejected as gibberish, as hysteria -
quite a natural assumption if one does not understand the
mental and spiritual laws through which this power works."
She elaborates upon the danger of "laying hands sudden-ly"
upon a person before he is prepared to receive such an
experience as tongues. She says that those who in their
enthusiasm lay hands on anyone with a minimum of prepa-ration
probably do not know that while some are blessed by
this, others are thrown into confusion and depression, and
she adds, "I do know, for I often pick up the wreckage."
After they have been burnt over by such a premature exper-ience
it is much more difficult for them to receive the real,
deep, life.giving power of the Holy Spirit - perhaps as diffi-cult
for them as for others who have a deep-seated skepticism
that such is either desirable, possible or scriptural! She pro-ceeds:
"Some people teach today that those who speak in
tongues have the Holy Spirit and those who do not speak
with tongues do not have the Holy Spirit. I cannot agree
with this assumption. In the first place the Bible does not
teach it . . . 'That there may be no schism in the body,' says
[the Apostle Paul] rather pathetically, considering the fact
that the explosion of this gift without understanding has
73
caused so much schism and controversy that many people
wish it had been left safely wrapped in the napkin of igno-rance
and buried in the ground, as was the unused talent in
our Lord's parable .... However, our Lord's remarks to the
cautious one who primly buried the talent were not such as
to encourage us in turning our backs upon an uncompre-hended
power. We would do better, as Dr. Henry P. Van
Dusen says in his book Spirit, Son and Father, to seek the
mysterious workings of the Spirit in spite of their occasional
eruption into apparent hysteria rather than to reject the
Holy Spirit in toto." (emphasis in original)
Those without understanding ask in response to Paul's
word, "He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth
himself": "How can a man edify himself if he does not
know what he is saying?" And Agnes Sanford replies, the
speaker in many cases does know in his unconscious mind
and this is why the majority of tongues speakers testify to
such an inexpressible satisfaction in the experience. "He is
speaking forth for the first time the deep knowledge of that
other part of himself and as he speaks it forth it is raised to
a higher level of the unconscious, is grasped in the essence
of its feeling ... and sometimes even emerges into the reason-ing
mind so that a small peripheral part of it is interpreted
in one's own language.... I am not against electricity be-cause
I may warn a grandchild not to stick a knife in the
toaster or touch a hot iron. Those who go berserk over the
gift of tongues have stuck a knife in the toaster and it is not
the fault of electricity that they have done so."
She explains further: "Tongues when practiced in private
prayer are largely a way of silencing the conscious mind . so
that the spirit may be freed to commune directly with God."
She speaks frankly to her neo-Pentecostal friends and warns
against making a fetish of holy joy. She reminds them
sternly that the purpose of all our Christian walk is not
simply the acquiring of joy but the following of Christ as a
faithful disciple and soldier in the battle against sin, the
world, and the devil.
She asserts that there are two ways of interpreting tongues:
one by previous knowledge of the language and the other by
direct inspiration of the Spirit. Do such things happen to-day?
she asks, and she answers, "Yes, they do .... I know an
74
instance of a group attended by a seminary professor. He
did not profess this gift, but being a teacher of the Bible he
was interested in learning whatever he could learn of the
operation of the Spirit. . . . It happened that a young woman
spoke in tongues, the voice becoming clear and loud, and
the words going forth in a tone of authority. The group
naturally became silent. When she had ceased, another wom-an
spoke forth in English. The professor said afterwards
that the first young woman had spoken perfect Hebrew and
the second woman had given a very fair interpretation
neither one of them, of course, knowing Hebrew."
Concluding Remarks
With a growing familiarity with this movement both in
life and in literature comes the growing conviction that the
new Pentecostals have very much the same internal problem
with tongues that the historic peace churches have with non-resistance.
The clarity of the Scripture on the subject is
such for us, and the conviction so deeply rooted in our gen-eral
understanding of the life and teachings of our Lord,
not to mention His redemption by the shedding of His
blood, that we can scarcely conceive of any serious Christian
not finding the call coming to him loud and clear to embrace
nonresistance. We refuse to say that a person must be com-mitted
to nonresistance to be truly saved, yet when we come
to consider the minimal requirements for membership in the
corporate body of Christ we are loath to leave this facet of
discipleship an open option for possible later commitment.
Consequently we hope never to need to declare ourselves
finally on this matter, and if we do need to, we live then
with an uneasy conscience about it. Our Baptist brethren
feel similarly about the mode of baptism. Other traditions
also have their deep feelings about, and attachments to, be-liefs
and practices they consider clearly Biblical in origin
and essential in Christian experience. Hopefully our con-viction
that we must love the enemy will permit us to love
our brethren also! - letting this question remain open to
further light. In the meantime however we proceed with
confidence holding to our belief and sharing it with others
at every appropriate opportunity. Just so with those who
75
have in a mature and balanced way entered into a new di-mension
of experience via the charismatic revival movement.
There are many other facets which even this lengthy sur-vey
has reluctantly had to omit. For some undoubtedly the
more important facets have been omitted but, if so, it is
only because what is crucial varies with each individual.
This writer agrees with those charismatic ministers who
argue that the world is as precarious for Christianity right
now as it has ever been and that this is why there is a re-surgence
of this early church phenomenon. The Rev. Dr.
John Mackay, President Emeritus of Princeton Seminary,
says: "There is a kind of mystic violence abroad in the world
today. In my mind this is surging up in the secular realm
at the end of an era, and you have got to match that in the
religious realm so that religion becomes a very, very exciting
th.i ng that absorbs you.r whole life in the principle of com- m1tment.
"In the secular realm we see people like the beatniks and
the delinquents who have just got to get their whole emo-tional
being in some direction, even in the wrong direction.
But the church is orderly. That hour is over; you could get
the historical churches irrelevant to the human situation. One
ieason is that they're unwilling to face the realities of the
kind of relationship to Deity which becomes a very exciting
thing. They're scared to death of anything that will get
your life.
"We are at the end of an era. Revolutionary, volcanic
forces are at work, and our people won't face that. We just
don' t want to look at it, you see, at the very time the vol-cano
is erupting."
The gist of the matter would seem to be that we guard
against taking too narrow a view at either end of the ques-tion.
The individual who has had a particular experience
may be too ardent about his discovery; the individual who
has not had the experience may he too biased in his views.
This has always been religion's dilemma ("I belong to Paul,"
"I belong to Cephas"). In a very real way this is also reli.:
gion's challenge to the unity and faith of men in our time
as their spiritual adventure affects their relationship to each
other and to God.
76